Flashes of Creation: George Gamow, Fred Hoyle, and the Great Big Bang Debate

by Paul Halpern

A respected physics professor and author breaks down the great debate over the Big Bang and the continuing quest to understand the fate of the universe.
 

Today, the Big Bang is so entrenched in our understanding of the cosmos that to doubt it would seem crazy. But as Paul Halpern shows in Flashes of Creation , just decades ago its mere mention caused sparks to fly. At the center of the debate were Russian American physicist George Gamow and British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle. Gamow insisted that a fiery explosion explained how the elements of the universe were created. Attacking the idea as half-baked, Hoyle countered that the universe was engaged in a never-ending process of creation. The battle was fierce. In the end, Gamow turned out to be right -- mostly -- and Hoyle, despite his many achievements, is remembered for giving the theory the silliest possible "The Big Bang." Halpern captures the brilliance of both thinkers and reminds us that even those proved wrong have much to teach us about boldness, imagination, and the universe itself.

 

 

Genres: Science, Physics, Nonfiction, History, Biography, History Of Science, Astronomy

304 pages, Hardcover

Published August 17, 2021

About the author

Acclaimed science writer and physicist Dr. Paul Halpern is the author of fourteen popular science books, exploring the subjects of space, time, higher dimensions, dark energy, dark matter, exoplanets, particle physics, and cosmology. He is the recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship, a Fulbright Scholarship, and an Athenaeum Literary Award. A regular contributor to NOVA's "The Nature of Reality" physics blog, he has appeared on numerous radio and television shows including "Future Quest" and "The Simpsons 20th Anniversary Special".

Halpern's latest book, "Einstein's Dice and Schrodinger's Cat," investigates how physicists Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrodinger battled together against the incompleteness and indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. Their dialogue inspired Schrodinger's famous thought-experiment about a cat in a box that is in a mixed state between life and death until it is observed. They struggled to find a unified field theory that would unite the forces of nature and supersede quantum weirdness. Sadly they would never find success and their efforts would lead to a fiasco.

More information about Paul Halpern's books and other writings can be found at:
phalpern.com

Reviews

[Marks54 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a joint biography of George Gamow and Fred Hoyle with a focus on their roles in and contributions to the evolving state of knowledge and agreement regarding the formation of the universe. This is the discussion and debate around the “Big Bang” theory (associated with Gamow) and its variants and the alternative “Steady State” theory (associated with Hoyle) that argued against there being a clear beginning of the universe. This is not just a story of high abstract and outlandishly complicated theories and clever experimental data but also a really nice account of how really complex scientific ideas come to be communicated and explained to the general public. The “Big Bang” debate helped jumpstart the age of popular science education - half a century ahead of the TV sitcom of that name.

Focusing on the lives of Hoyle and Gamow makes sense here and works well in the book. Both were strong individuals in the emergent age of big team-based science - truly a vanishing breed. The science story, however, is much more complicated that the work of two men and involves teams of collaborators and competitors, with a dash of Nobel Prize committee politics mixed in. This is a general account and the lives of many great scholars (men and women) are involves. The stories of Gamow and Hoyle are really good ones, however, and I learned a lot that I did not know from the book. I also received confirmation that I likely made a good decision in not pursuing big time science, even if it was joined to astronomy and star gazing.

The book is well written and a quick read. There are lots of references for those who want more.

[Ramin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here's a brief excerpt from my review in the New York Times. Read the whole thing here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/bo...

When the Big Bang Was Just a Theory

The universe is changing. But scientists didn’t realize that a century ago, when astronomers like Edwin Hubble and Henrietta Leavitt discerned that other galaxies exist and that they’re hurtling away from the Milky Way at incredible speeds. That monumental discovery sparked decades of epic debates about the vastness and origins of the universe, and they involved a clash of titans, the Russian-American nuclear physicist George Gamow and the British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle.

In his new book, “Flashes of Creation,” Paul Halpern chronicles the rise of Gamow and Hoyle into leaders of mostly opposing views of cosmology, as they disputed whether everything began with a Big Bang billions of years ago.

Halpern, a physicist himself at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, skillfully brings their fascinating stories to light, out of the shadow of the overlapping quantum physics debates between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, which Halpern has written about in an earlier book. Halpern also poses fundamental questions about how science should be done. When do you decide, for example, to abandon a theory? Ultimately, his book seeks to vindicate Hoyle, who in his later years failed to admit his idea had lost...

[Check out my whole book review here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/bo...]

[Noreen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting history of famous physicists from Einstein pre WWII. Nice outline of controversies, resolutions, not focused on building atomic bomb. Similar format to “Men of Mathematics.”

Interesting description of academic British organizational politics. Middle class British vs academic merit.

Richard Feynman had a personal policy of not joining organizations which spent their time discussing who they would allow into the club. Life is short, rather spend ones time on pursuit of happiness…

[Maxine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Today, pretty much everyone accepts that the universe began with the Big Bang. However, in the mid-20th c, the question of the origins of the universe were still being debated. In his book, Flashes of Creation, physics professor and author Paul Halpern looks at two of the main scientists involved, theoretical physicist George Gamow and physicist Fred Doyle with Gamow a strong proponent of the theory and Doyle arguing that the universe was always in the process of being created. Halpern gives a well-researched and in-depth look at their arguments on both sides. Best of all, he tells the story in language easily understood by us non-scientific types and makes it extremely interesting. For anyone who, like me, lacks a science background but wants to understand the science behind the big bang, I highly recommend this book.

Thanks to Netgalley and Perseus Books for the opportunity to read this book in exchange for an honest review

[Betsy · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not the exciting science controversy I was looking for. Just chapter after chapter of lists of scientific conferences and names of attendees. Hoyle and Gamow barely knew each other and they certainly didn't have any fascinating conversations on the titular subject. Boring. Didn't finish.

[J.D. Steens · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book, in large part biographical, describes the debate in the late 1940s and early ‘50s between Fred Hoyle and George Gamow regarding their opposing theories about the origins of the universe. The book also describes their different theories about element creation (stellar formation for Hoyle, or the big bang for Gamow) as these also fed into the overall origins question.

While Hoyle subscribed to Hubble’s expansion concept, he also saw the continuous creation of matter and energy coming up from behind, as it were, from what he called a “creation field.” Though he saw the big bang neither as big nor as a bang, Gamow saw the universe expanding from a single point, creating space and time. In the end, the evidence supported the big bang scenario, though Halpern cautions that big bang theorists come across too much as settled science.

The Hoyle-Gamow debate not only deals with cosmic origins, but also with its future. Halpern describes the commonly laid out future scenarios: (a) a flat universe (hyperplane) where there is zero curvature, and straight-line expansion continues perpetually; (b) a curved universe (hypersphere) where expansion of matter and energy ceases, and returns to its starting point; and (c) an open, saddle shaped universe (hyperboloid) with negative curvature where expansion continues, also indefinitely, with matter and energy in space increasingly separating from each other.

The discussion on the three geometric scenarios was confusing, and I went to the internet for some clarification. All three scenarios begin from a highly dense (mass-energy), Gamow-like, big bang condition, pushing matter and energy outward. The twin questions then are what shape does the universe take and what is the universe's ultimate fate.

With this, the three scenarios are: (a) An open universe where the universe expands forever because there's not enough mass to counteract the expansion via gravitational attraction; (b) a closed universe in which density is great enough for gravity to overcome the expansion force and pull the universe (spacetime) back into itself, as a ball or small point (referred to as the big crunch); and (c) a flat universe where gravitational density brings the big bang to a halt - a stasis point, right at the balance point between an open and closed universe, so that the universe neither expands nor contracts. Another way to illustrate this is escape velocity vis-a-vis gravitational attraction. In an open universe, a rocket with sufficient speed escapes the pull of gravity; in a closed universe, speed is insufficient to overcome gravity and the rocket is pulled back to earth; and, in a flat universe, the rocket moves into an orbit around the earth as its velocity is right at the balance point between too much and too little. (1)

One point I didn't understand is the role the inverse square law plays in this emphasis upon mass-energy density, i.e. as matter and energy move away from a gravitational center (big bang) point, gravity's "attraction" (via the depression of spacetime per Einstein) becomes less powerful, dissipating in its accelerating (pulling-attraction) effects. When that happens, doesn't matter and energy (galaxies, dust, and such) become liberated, to continue its inertial movement unimpeded from gravity's accelerating effects? (2)

Where, then, does this outward movement go, a point that Hoyle does not address? If the universe's origin begins with a big bang, it by definition almost sets the geometry of spacetime as an overall curvature (3), and its power, per the inverse square law, progressively dissipates as it moves outward (and, as Hubble observed, the galaxies at the outer edge increasingly separate from each other and speed up as they are released from the effects of gravity). (4) While galaxies at the outer edge of the big bang aftermath are freed "locally" (relative to each other) from gravity's grasp, the overall curvature set by the big bang's initial condition remains as a gravitational force that, rather than pulling back as in the big crunch model, pulls matter and energy and their inertial movement onward and around to the other side of the universe's overall spacetime curvature. At some point, at the outer edge of the expansion, a balance (break) point (the flat universe model) begins its return toward the gravitational center and its increasing (again, per the inverse square law) accelerating effects. In this regard, Halpern writes that, “Just as on Earth, if you fly eastward long enough, you circumnavigate the globe and end up back at your starting point, the same would happen to a spaceship if it could possibly travel that long in a hyperspherical cosmos; the craft would circumnavigate space and return home.”

Seen this way, is it possible that all three models at work? Initially, the universe is open (outward expansion from the big bang), until it reaches its balance point (the flat, stasis model of Hoyle), and then returns back to its beginning (the closed universe scenario, and also the "pulling" force that Hoyle saw evidence for). Then at that beginning point, cyclically, (perhaps by Gamow's "big bounce," it begins the process over (and over) again, which is another way that Hoyle's "creation field" might be seen. (5)

Just wondering whether any of this makes any sense.

1. Does this trade off between velocity and gravity somehow illustrate the distinction between kinetic mass and rest mass?
2. Hoyle argues that something from the beyond must be pulling matter and energy outward, thus foreseeing something that sounds a lot like dark energy and dark matter, but nothing is said about explaining this by the dissipation of gravity, allowing inertial movement to be free again. It's interesting that the concept (law of) inertia captures a body's tendency to stay at rest if at rest, with rest being the balance point between straight-line inertial movement on the one hand and gravity's accelerating (moving) effects on the other, and a body's straight-line movement when liberated from gravity's accelerating effects. It's interesting that the emphasis in these cosmic origin scenarios is, per Newton, and accelerating (gravitational) effects, and not on inertial movement, which occurs in the absence of gravitational effects. The more basic question is whether, in the absence of an accelerating effect from gravity, does movement cease, or does movement, when free of gravity, continue, as its own, interior, impelling, inertial force?
3. Hoyle writes that“[C]urrent observations indicate that the universe is flat,” which Halpern says is the most widely held view these days? But, if one goes with the big bang scenario, would not the expansion, by definition, begin from a point of curvature, making the idea of zero curvature and a flat universe a non-starter?
4. Halpern alludes to this possibility by writing that, With “a universe that was expanding exponentially,..the nothingness drove the most virulent kind of growth.” By Halpern’s description, it is almost as if the three origin and future scenarios are stuck in Euclidean space - no curvature, a linear out and back cosmic movement, or an outward expansion never to return. But, if the cosmic origin is from a big bang gravitational center point, wouldn’t there be both curvature, as it moves from a gravitational center point, and wouldn’t it be open by definition (movement outward from a ball)? While matter and energy move away from each other, they also continue moving around the cosmic gravitational “field” and back to the beginning point? And, to toss this into the mix as well, as
circumnavigation continues toward the cosmic gravitational center, might this account for the pulling force that is putatively assigned to dark energy and dark matter?
(5) This notion of circumnavigation/return to a starting point almost suggests that Gamow and Hubble saw the same thing differently: Rather than an uncertain or unspecified ending point via outward expansion, does movement continue by curvature back to the starting point and, via a big bang ending and beginning, continue on, cycling forever, along the lines of Hoyle’s continuous creation of matter and energy (the “creation field”)? The title to the book indicates an unintended agreement with this scenario as “flashes” suggests a continuous process of cyclic creation.

[Dr. Victor · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was initially eager to read this book, for my father, Ralph A. Alpher, was Gamow's doctoral student and calculated by hand (in 1947) a verification of recent measurements of the abundance of the elements, and in 1948 predicted the existence of the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).
Despite the flashy cover, this is the first book I had to return to the seller. Dr. Halpern is on the faculty of the "University of the Sciences" in the Philadelphia area--an institution I am not familiar with (my doctorate is from Vanderbilt). From a scholarly perspective there were too many problems with the material on which the book is based. Taking a more "journalistic" approach, Halpern reports a series of telephone interviews with Igor Gamow (George's son). Given the fallibility of memory, I question such interviews as a source of information with no concomitant period of validation.

I read references first--look at the index, and then proceed. You may have a legitimate alternative method. This is what I do. Finding under "For futher reading" a reference to a minor paper published by me in the Asian Journal of Physics (2014) while ignoring my most important paper on the Big Bang (in Physics in Perspective, 2012), this leads me to wonder just how thorough Dr. Halpern is as a scholar. I would be reluctant to put much faith in other works. He picks trendy topics, that I can say. However, how a book of this nature god through the editor at Basic Books tends to lead me to question the editorial process at Basic Books, which was at one time at top-shelp imprimatur.

[Catherine Ann · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fine book documenting the debate

[Nestor · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book a lot. It's a marvelous description of the XX century advances, opposites theories, and how the universe started. The book makes a very detailed and good summary of the history of Astrophysics. Also, explain quantum mechanics and its liaison with Astrophysics. It's very well explained but doesn't give reference papers to expand knowledge. I liked very much learning the true history of the Big Bang Theory. I learn that Gamow along with Alpher and Hermann were the true developers of the theory. Especially, Alpher did the calculation. Lamaitre just had the initial idea based on the early work from Friedman. I learned about George Gamow, a great physicist as well as astrophysics, that made great contributions to science as well as became an outstanding scientific disseminator (communicator) during the '40s and '50s. Also, he made contributions to biology, his ideas helped lead to discoveries in the genetic code that connect the patterns of nucleotides in DNA and RNA to the formation of various proteins.

The author also explains Hoyle's theory of the steady-state universe and includes the rampant debate about Big Bang and the steady-state universe. Hoyle who had pioneered the notion that all the chemical elements were created in stars, unfairly was never awarded the Novel Prize for this contribution perhaps due to his stubbornness? about the steady-state universe theory. Later in his life when he was involved with Biology, evolution, and panspermia he made writings boldly about epidemics(like AIDS) caused by space microbial even though he wrote a paper that flu was caused by sunspot cycles.

Gamow wrote the beginning of the story of element creation(helium), and Hoyle wrote the ending(late stages of the star), Hoyle's theory could not explain why about one-quarter of the atomic content of the universe is helium, and Gamow's could not justify how elements such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and dozens of even heavier ones exist.

Both Gamow and Hoyle were greater scientific communicators to the public and had a tremendous impact on the audience. They were at the right spot of mass communication disruption in the late '50s and '60s helping to popularize science. Many in the audience became scientists themselves. Also, their science fiction books made a footprint on the genre. In the modern era, only Carl Sagan could be compared to them on the other hand current Michiru Kaku is just a smoke seller who didn't achieve anything in physics neither he's a good communicator, books are poorly documented and TV shows are badly developed.

I don't give it 5 stars since it doesn't discuss deeply the initial singularity and the inflation model. Neither discussed the philosophical implications of a Big Bang Model.

[john lambert · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the second book I've read by Halpern. He is very good at explaining the weighty concepts of the universe and man's attempts to figure it out.

This book covers two scientists who were on opposite sides of the 'discussion' on whether the universe was steady state, that is, thundering along while creating more galaxies, etc VS the big bang where it all started long ago in something like an explosion. I had heard of Hoyle but Gamow is new to me.

Of course, both men are really smart and mavericks in the science field. Both wrote books that were very popular and that explained various mysteries of the universe. Hoyle had a popular radio show in England. (Scientists were heroes in those days!) Some of the book describes their personal lives and families, which adds a nice touch. He quotes their children who describe their fathers and the family life. Interesting.

A local item is the 'final proof' for the big bang came from nearby Holmdel, NJ. In 1964 two scientists (Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias, both Nobel Prize winners) accidently discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) using the horn antenna at nearby Bell Labs. Apparently, the antenna is still on top of Crawford Hill! I'm going to get over there to see it.

A few mentions of Gamow's books...
The Brith and Death of the Sun
Mr. Thompkins Explores the Atom
Mr. Thompkins in Wonderland
One, Two, Three... Infinity

[Heather Perkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love reading books and watching programs about astrophysics. I watched both Cosmos' and anything on Nova and Discovery and the Science channel that I could. The big names like Galileo and Newton and Einstein were always talked about, but even though I knew the theories that these men discovered and worked through I never knew their names.
This book gives a thorough and humanizing look at not only the two men of Gamow and Hoyle, but the teams of people who's names you might not have heard before, and some you may have, around them as the scientific world tried to understand the make up of the universe, and how it came to be. It doesn't just look at the biography of the men, but it gives an accounting of the science as well, and while I do have a rather basic understanding of the topics being discussed in the book, Paul Halpern uses allegories and allusions to make it easy for the reader to understand. For anyone interested in how our current understanding of the creation of the universe came to be, and the understanding of nebulas, supernovae, black holes, how the elements are created, and to read the "not bird poop" Cosmic Background Radiation story yet one more time, this book is one to add to your TBR.
Thank you to NetGalley and Basic Books for the copy of this book.

[Vansa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I remember learning about the lifecycle of a star, and red dwarves and supernovas and so on in school, and how reactions take place in stars and power life as we know it. I love books about the history of science- the slow buildup of observations, the painstaking documentation and verification of possibilities, and this book is perfect for that. Halpern traces all the work done to explain the formation of the Universe-to me , it seems perfectly obvious but these theories really aren't that old! It's obvious to me now, observational technology would need to develop enough for scientists to have enough data to analyse, and it took years of team effort to come up with coherent theories. While the book's ostensibly about Gamov and Fred Hoyle, with their competing theories of the origins of the Universe, Halpern makes sure not to ignore all the scientists involved, whose observations contributed to final theories. The book's very well-written and well-edited, and the science is lucidly explained, without it seeming too much like a school-level textbook. Given how keen both Gamov and Hoyle were on the popularisation of science, they would be proud of Halpern's work!

[Dale Lehman · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I first encountered cosmology in high school in the early 1970's, I already had my sights set on a career in astronomy. The work of George Gamow, Fred Hoyle, and many of the other scientists who appear in this book became relatively familiar to me at the time. My life veered in an unexpected direction, and I never got to study physics and astronomy in depth, but I maintain my interest in them to this day. It was fun revisiting my "old stomping grounds" with Halpern as a guide.

While this isn't a book about science as such, if I have any criticism of it, it's only that some of Halpern's scientific explanations lacked rigor. However, the book isn't about the science as such but about the people behind it. In portraying them, he did a fine job of showing the humanity, the genius, the strengths, and and the weaknesses of two of the most creative and influential figures of 20th century astronomy. So I definitely recommend Flashes of Creation to anyone interested in the history and the human side of science.

[Thurston Hunger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this after listening to the author interviewed on NPR's Science Friday. The interview was quite enjoyable and the book is fine too, in general I'm not much of fan (yet?) for biographies. I've noticed that some folks as they get older tend to develop their fondness for them.

Perhaps they are the heavier elements of the reading cycle. Anyways at times I got a bit bogged down on the who and would try to force myself to focus more on the what (a brief mention of Van Allen Belts sent me off a little search-break).

The appreciation by the author, and the children of the two featured scientists, for more seat-of-the-pants physics was note-worthy. Both scientists are also painted somewhat as men of letters, with stories of Discovery and early televised popular science for what feels like a more curious public back then.

The cautionary tale of a blind dedication to one's own theories, now that surely applies to this day, and not necessarily to the learned in their laboratories.

[Andrea Wenger · Rating 5 out of 5]

This biography of physicists George Gamow and Fred Hoyle is told in the context of their ongoing debate over how the universe began: whether it started in a Big Bang, as Gamow proposed (though he didn’t use that term, which was coined by Hoyle), or has always existed in a steady state of renewal and decay, as Hoyle imagined. Told in language accessible to lay people, it portrays these larger-than-life men as uniquely human. Mavericks who weren’t afraid of pushing the boundaries of science, they contributed greatly to our understanding of how the elements in the universe were formed. The book also explores their work as science communicators who inspired the next generation of scientists. Informative and entertaining, this book is a pleasure to read.

Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received.

[Poptart19 (the name’s ren) · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars

An engaging narrative of advances in astrophysics & cosmology during the first half of the 20th C & the popularization of science writing & media during the same era, focusing on the contributions of George Gamow & Fred Hoyle.

[What I liked:]

•This was a fun book to read! While I was somewhat familiar with many of the concepts & theories discussed in the book, it was neat to see them presented in a chronological historical narrative, how the different ideas & research built on each other over time.

•This book is written in an engaging way, covering the rivalry between two prominent physicists & science educators & how they each shaped the modern cosmology. The narrative structure & writing style make it easy to follow, even when difficult, abstract concepts are discussed.


[What I didn’t like as much:]

•At certain points the book was a bit repetitive. Certain points were re-stated later on in the narrative, I guess to remind the reader of a relevant point when it came up again, but to me it felt unnecessary.

[I received an ARC ebook copy from NetGalley in exchange for my honest review. Thank you for the book!]

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this book was fascinating, making me think about how elements were and continue to be formed within the universe. The personalities of George Gamow and Fred Hoyle were interesting and added to the story, but for me the really interesting part of this book was the science itself. Dr. Halpern did an outstanding job of explaining the recent (post WWII era) history of cosmology and, in the very final chapter of the book, its current status with an overview of dark energy and cold dark matter as forces that could explain the accelerated expansion of the universe.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lively and informative biography of two physicists - Gamow and Hoyle - who, through their insights, helped to describe the nature of our universe. In some ways, this book is also a biography of the Big Bang, first imagined by Gamow and disputed by Hoyle. Both men popularized science through appearances on the new medium of TV and authoring many books, fiction and non-fiction. Both men also demonstrated that flashes of insight, even if they are wrong, can push scientific understanding forward.

[Lisa Konet · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an interesting and more in depth analysis of the creation of the universe; mostly the Big Bang theory versus a gradual accumulation of matter. There was a lot of discussion about the work and theories provided by scientists Dr. Gamow and Dr. Hoyle which added to the interest of this book. This book was heavy on scientific analysis, biology, chemistry and physics but was in no way boring or mundane.

Thank you library for another good find!

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a look at George Gamov and the Big Bang Theory and Fred Hoyle and the Steady State Theory. It's a detailed look at the origin and evolution of the Big Bang Theory. It also looks at the other contributions these scientists made to physics and provides a detailed look at their careers and lives.

[Gabe Hawkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Part biographical piece and part explanation of the origins and controversies around the Big Bang Theory. Sometimes it leaned too far into biography, but there’s some captivating discussion and analysis here. Very accessible too. Worth reading if you’re at all interested in the work that led to establishing one of the most notorious theories in science.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well written scientific history of two famous astronomers, I was most interested in reading about George Gamow, as I have read a number of his very good books but knew very little of Fred Hoyle. A very good read.

[Nancy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am abandoning this book. I don’t normally do this but life is too short and there are so many great books to read. For me, this one is drier than sawdust. The intro should’ve been the red flag that turned me away but I kept going through chapter 2 before giving up.

[Mark Wood · Rating 4 out of 5]

Part history, part biography, part science, all of it interesting. It fleshed out a number of people I only knew through their work, and I got back in touch with some ideas I'd not thought much about since I was a lot younger.

[Sue]

This book ended up being more "biography" than I was interested in. Also, it seems written in a straightforward but not particularly compelling style.

[Camille · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating look at the theories of how the universe began.....

[Mary Davidsaver · Rating 4 out of 5]

I listened to the audio version of this book and found it an entertaining mix of interesting facts and information about people I hadn't known I'd missed out on discovering before now.

[Goshak · Rating 3 out of 5]

очень много биографических подробностей, вместе с тем тем по деталям публикаций автор скачет стрекозой. ничего плохого в этом нет, кому-то именно такое интересно. но не мне.

[Steve Gross · Rating 3 out of 5]

Adequate but uninspiring

[Nirmalya Kajuri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Did the universe begin with a bang—or has it always just… been?

In the 1950s, cosmology had its Ali vs Frazier moment. On one corner was Steady State theory, championed by the no-nonsense British physicist Fred Hoyle, which held the universe to be immortal, unchanging and self-replenishing. On the other corner was Big Bang theory, pioneered by the colorful Ukrainian physicist. George Gamow. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was steadily cooling after having started out incredibly hot and dense. Paul Halpern's book is an engaging story of this clash of titans.

Halpern masterfully anchors the science in the human drama. The protagonists, Hoyle and Gamow, come alive in his telling. There are several fun anecdotes, such as Gamow adding his friend Hans Bethe's name to a paper much to the chagrin of his student Ralph Alpher just so that the author list would read like Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Hoyle getting the idea of steady state universe from a horror film. Halpern never sacrifices the science for the drama, though. The crisp and clear explanation of the physics (Halpern is a physicist) is arguably the book's biggest strength.

The only minor problem with the book is that the debate between the two theories was (spoiler alert) never a neck-and-neck battle. Steady State theory was a heavy underdog till the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation knocked it out once and for all. The book's attempts to amp up the lopsided debate feels a tad artificial on occasions.

However, this is a minor complaint. Halpern succeeds brilliantly in making an esoteric debate on cosmology as entertaining as a novel. In the battle between big bang and steady state, good science writing is the ultimate winner!